Michelle was here last February, the day before the primary. I attended. That was the speech where she said "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country," something that didn't even stand out to me in what I thought was an excellent speech. I'm used to hearing what I'm used to hearing in our little lefty city.

I'm used to hearing what I'm used to hearing in our little lefty city.

Or, in context it was obvious that she was talking about her unmatched excitement regarding what the campaign was doing and could do, rather than the accusation that she was sending the message that she only became proud of America when her husband ended up on the short list for a P nomination because she's a "devil woman."

The interesting question is: was Althouse's mind more or less clear before the right wingers trained her to re-understand Michelle's comments? As a follow up, is it sad our joyous to be retrained in this circumstance?

Just hope McCain has some people in Milwaukee to watch for the dead bodies voting and protect the vans from the sons of the city councilwoman and the rep. Lst time they had more votes than population in big parts of the city. Even worse than Chicago and Seattle. Also got to watch out for the bus service between Chicago and Madison.

The voting thing is interesting to watch. McCain's campaign sent voter registration flyers to a slew of folks in Middleton. Alas, the mailing address for the registration was in Madison. But this attempt to disenfranchise voters is met by a Who Cares? by the Republican Attorney General, who is too busy jumping through hoops for the National Republican Party.

I've lost faith the the non-stop BS about lowering taxes and unleashing business. I've looked past the rhetoric, and I've seen the record.

I see the budget deficits, and more importantly, the percentage of the budget dedicated to interest payments. I see that in some ways we survive because of foreigners buying Treasuries. I see that Rs use the government to funnel tax money to businesses. I see that our economy is loosing it's manufacturing and infrastructure base (which are rather important aspects of capitalism.) I see that the private sector (while depending on the the gov via medicare/medicaid/schip) is continuing to make health care more expensive. As a percent of GDP we spend more than is sustainable, and this will get worse as entitlement demands grow (consider that, when comparing percentages of GDP, our current gov contribution to health care expenses is similar to the amount spent by Canada for their entire system.) I see unsustainable foriegn adventures fueled by bravado, shallow thinking, and a welcome dependence on oil.

The Ds came to realize that their welfare ideas sucked. Presumably the Rs will eventually realize that the various expressions of their corporate welfare theories suck, then they'll change, and I'll switch back--unless the Ds keep one step ahead, which seems unlikely.

Wisconsin is now listed as one of the undecided states. And in fact Barack Obama is coming here tomorrow, but he's not wasting his magic on Madison. He's going to Green Bay, where John McCain just went.

You know I'm the highest-traffic blogger in Wisconsin, and maybe Wisconsin will decide the election. And I'm undecided, avowedly so. Isn't that funny?

Ann, here's a question I've been asking myself lately, so I'll ask you too. There are 4 same-sex couples within four blocks of my house. I have a nodding acquaintance with all of them. In addition, I work with half a same-sex couple. (I'm sure you know the other half of this couple).

Why should I vote for a party that devalues their relationships? These are relationships that I see are just as committed as the one I share with my wife.

Anyway, that's what I've been thinking. It makes it much harder to consider McCain and any Republican in Wisconsin.

1jpb said..."The interesting question is: was Althouse's mind more or less clear before the right wingers trained her to re-understand Michelle's comments?"

A couple of years ago, my wife and I went to see U2 in Chicago. It was the show that they ultimately put out on DVD. We attended. It's a funny thing, you know: watching the show in person, there's a lot of little mistakes that I hear on the DVD - lots of things that I notice - that I didn't see while I was there. Understand?

Althouse said..."I'm used to hearing what I'm used to hearing in our little lefty city."

I think that's why she said it, and perhaps it's why the audience didn't react. Michelle is used to hearing such sentiments. She was among friends, in a little lefty college town; she said how she felt. The difference between the right and the left (once you get past the silly efforts in some quarters to claim she either didn't say what she said or that she didn't mean it if she did), these days, could be boiled down to whether or not such feeling is acceptable.

MadisonMan, isn't the obvious answer that there are things that really matter at stake, so focusing on one trivial issue -- a fortiori one that neither Obama nor McCain can do much about, and on which their positions aren't much different anyway -- is to rationalize how one's already decided to vote, not to reason ex ante how one will vote?

"I've lost faith the the non-stop BS about lowering taxes and unleashing business. I've looked past the rhetoric, and I've seen the record."

So in other words, you gave up, dropped your pants, bent over and said: "OK since I'm going to get fucked either way, come on Democrats and fuck me really, really hard!"

"Why should I vote for a party that devalues their relationships? These are relationships that I see are just as committed as the one I share with my wife."

Because it's a trivial issue that affects a very small percentage of the population and there are much, much more important issues facing the country at the moment. Of course we all have many disagreements with our chosen candidates. The point is to figure out which issues trump which other issues and vote for the least worst candidate.

Don't forget that the Democrat party also "devalues" the relationships of us queers. Barack Obama's position on "gay marriage" is not substantially different that John McCain's. We've had eight years of (as I'm told) "the most evil, theocratic, hateful, fundamentalist" regime and guess what? Absolutely nothing has negatively changed regarding gay marriage or gay relationships or gay people on a national level. The only things that have changed are the advent of legal "gay marriage" in several states and the Lawrence v Texas decision. The executive branch has little effect of such matters.

Palladian said... "We've had eight years of (as I'm told) 'the most evil, theocratic, hateful, fundamentalist regime and guess what? Absolutely nothing has negatively changed regarding gay marriage or gay relationships or gay people on a national level."

I wouldn't say that nothing has changed, but nothing has changed as a result of said "evil, theocratic, hateful, fundamentalist regime." The issue of gay marriage was injected into the national conversation by its proponents, and turned into a campaign issue four years ago by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. Every state constitutional amendment since then has been driven by a backlash among ordinary Americans to something that they don't want to happen. If the recent trend against gay marriage is regression for the gay community's goals, it was a self-inflicted wound. As much as the DTLs of the world may bloviate, it wasn't the Bush administration wot dun it.

chickenlittle said... "Don't misread me Simon. I will vote in November, hell or high water. But I think my California electoral vote will be cast against my will, just as it was in 2004."

I understand, and that's a much better way of putting it, but I do question the idea that for one's vote to count, the person one voted for must prevail. I see that as being connected to what we're talking about in connection to Althouse's post above, about bipartisanship and frustration with the process of politics as normal.

...and let me add, before going to bed, that my opinion is that the Republican Party has done a piss-poor job of helping veterans. Veteran Hospitals are woefully understaffed. Consider the dreadful record of helping veterans of Iraq with brain injuries. Look how John McCain had to be dragged kicking and screaming into support of the new GI Bill!

Republicans claim to be all about helping Veterans, but when push comes to shove, they'd rather fund bridges to nowhere.

MM, gay marriage is a state issue, and any attempt to federalize it requires a Constitutional Amendment or a federal court decision. What the President of the United States has to do with the former two I don't know. So, yes: while I can see that some people might regard it as relevant when selecting a legislator or a Governor, it is absolutely a trivial issue when you're electing a President.

MadisonMan said... "my opinion is that the Republican Party has done a piss-poor job of helping veterans."

No disagreement here.

"Republicans claim to be all about helping Veterans, but when push comes to shove, they'd rather fund bridges to nowhere."

Those are the kinds of Republicans that McCain and Palin are fighting against! No such dilemma for the Democrats: they'd happily fund both. The difference between the democrats and the republicans on pork is that pork is a corruption for republicans and a standard MO for Democrats. No comparison.

Simon said: I do question the idea that for one's vote to count, the person one voted for must prevail.

Three things:1) To clarify, my remarks about vote counting were probably inappropriate in my first post. They didn't mirror any part of MadisonMan's comment which was my intent.2) By "count" I simply meant that my popular vote would not be counted electorally. But you're right about partisanship. 3) I'll cheerfully abide by the results of the election no matter the result. I'm a good sport. I voted for the losing side in 5 out of the last 7 election (didn't vote in '92).

For every black guy who fantastizes about boinking Mrs. Obama, there are ten times as many white guys who are having the same thoughts about Mrs. Palin.

This is a problem for Sen. Obama, though not so much so on a personal level.

Anyway, New York Observer writer George Gurley went out on on the streets of Manhattan to ask dudes if they were having sexual fantasies about Mrs. Palin....He is what some guys said..

• "I want to have sex with her. Want to lick that face and drool on it like a dog."• "During her speech at the convention: No cleavage? No fair. Slurp slurp."• "I want her to take care of me. Nurse! Climb into bed with me and watch movies, cuddle, laugh, play footsie."• "I see she had a tanning bed installed in the Governor’s mansion. That means no tan lines. Mmmm, me likey!"• "Camping! Take a pontoon plane, go fishing for walleyes and northern pike. Listen to the loons. In the morning, she'd chase away a bear, then get back into the sleeping bag with me. Her husband can come along, too, I guess. Don't want to see his dick."• "Just the two of us in a big suite [at the Regency]. Then she waits in the sitting room while I take a bubble bath — I like to lay in the tub for a half-hour with the shower water beating down on me."• I would like to smell her.

MadisonMan: I assure you that I wasn't trying to "outdo you with association with vets" (but I did mention my father and and brother?) :)

Truth be told, I was just ripping your "but what would the neighbors think" rationale for choosing not to vote Republican.

It's true that I have lots of USMC and some USN neighbors (who doesn't in San Diego County, unless you inhabit rarified La Jolla?)It's also true that I respect the fucking hell out of them. But they're not why I'd vote against Obama tomorrow, which was your lame point.

I'm voting for McCain-Palin because I believe it's in the best interest for the entire country, not just a minority.

One last thing MadisonMan. I need to be on your good side. You're the only one ever who answers my stupid "olden times" queries about Madison:)

Why are you undecided at this point in the game? What is it you are waiting for outside of your vow of cruel neutrality? Surely, there must be something that you are looking for that will tip you over the edge, no?

So I biked past the G.A.R. park -- I wonder if she'll mention that? -- and the barricades are up. I'm not sure how swell the view from the top of the building will be -- I'd forgotten about all the trees. I'll see the crowd, sure, but maybe not the lady herself.

Methadras said..."Ann, Why are you undecided at this point in the game? What is it you are waiting for outside of your vow of cruel neutrality? Surely, there must be something that you are looking for that will tip you over the edge, no?"

I think that part of it is that she doesn't want to let the candidates off the hook - once they've got your vote, they can move on. If she waits until election day to make up her mind, the candidates have to (so to speak) keep earning her vote right up to the wire.

(Also, perhaps she has a bet with JAC over which of her GOP-leaning commenters will keel over first from the anxiety: will she? won't she? AHHH!)

She has lived in The People's Republic of Madison for too long. She has inhaled so much secondhand leftwing wacko smoke that she has developed leftwingatosis.

I don't know why so many Conservatives and gays of both parties have migrated to this site but Ann is a liberal Democrat in every way as far as I can tell with the exception of the post 9-11 sympathy for Bush on Iraq.

Just as you can barely tell this is the blog of a stodgy old law professor you also would never know this is the blog of a life long lefty.

jdeeripper said..."I don't know why so many Conservatives and gays of both parties have migrated to [Althouse's blog]...."

Because she's extraordinary.

No one here is unaware of her political background, either. More than "liberal" or "conservative," I think she's idiosyncratic, an individualist. A liberal, yes, but a liberal who rejects the liberal groupthink and nonthink, and one who I sometimes think has Burkeian instincts.